That's one of the things that always interests me about the Queensryche debates, that they need to do longer songs.
Were they really known for that, though? They operated in the 4-6 minute range far more than they did the 8-10 minute range, and most of their best songs were relatively shorter. The QR I loved wasn't one that was throwing out constant 10 minute tracks. While I wouldn't mind seeing them write good material at any length, a lot of people seem to be associating QR with long songs, and that really wasn't their thing.
Yes and no. I'm not saying they need to do epics all the time. They DO have a few that range in the 7-10 minute range, and I can't think of a single of on those that are not awesome. But even if they rarely or never do anything that long again, that's not really the issue.
In their earlier years, MOST of their songs were in the 4-5 minute range. On the latest album, the average run time is a lot lower. Not counting the two "transition"/intro pieces, 5 of the 9 songs don't even crack the 3:30 mark. Each of those could do with another 20-30 seconds, at least. And while that doesn't seem like much, it's all that is needed to help those songs breathe and build a bit more. Sometimes, there's something to be said for the quick, to-the-point song. That's all fine, and you can point to some songs where that works. But others need just a bit more. IMO, In This Light is a perfect example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LGaEOP86Kc Very good song. And I kind of like that it starts suddenly. But the vocals coming in at only about 10 seconds in is too fast, it could use a bit more space between the first chorus and second verse, the transition into the solo is a bit too short, and while the outro solo is VERY nice, it also ends just a bit prematurely. The second two issues probably aren't
necessary, but fix the first two and you've got an outstanding song vs. one right now that feels structurally incomplete despite lots of outstanding moments.